From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15737 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2004 00:15:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15689 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2004 00:15:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Nov 2004 00:15:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA40FS4Y024117 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:15:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iA40FNr23124; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:15:23 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29670129D8C; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41897490.9060306@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/hppa/rfa] unwind fix for functions with no debug info References: <20041103174449.GD4249@tausq.org> <41895A80.1090500@gnu.org> <20041103223711.GG4249@tausq.org> In-Reply-To: <20041103223711.GG4249@tausq.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 Randolph Chung wrote: >>Ok for 6.3 and mainline with a comment/change log tweak: >> >>The convention is for the ChangeLog to record what was changed while the >>code records why it was changed. > > > will do. thanks. > > I'm still looking at another aspect of this problem: > > For example, in this backtrace: > (gdb) bt > #0 0x406510a8 in Tcl_Finalize () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #1 0x40650de0 in Tcl_Exit () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #2 0x40131224 in exp_new_i_simple () from /usr/lib/libexpect5.42.so.1 > #3 0x406273b8 in TclInvokeStringCommand () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #4 0x40628730 in TclEvalObjvInternal () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #5 0x406293e8 in Tcl_EvalEx () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #6 0x406297bc in Tcl_Eval () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 > #7 0x00010bc0 in main () > > at frame #2, 0x40131224 is not actually in exp_new_i_simple, but in > another function with no recorded name. this backtrace is confusing; > possibly we should show "#2 0x40131224 in ??? from ..." instead? > > thoughts? First check frame_unwind_address_in_block, perhaphs the "pc" is past the end of the "???" function and into exp_new_i_simple? Beyond that though things get messy. The symbol table would need to fudge up a "???" symbol for that non-recorded function - something we're not yet in a position to do. Andrew